1 / 61

Chapter 5 Logic and Inference: Rules

Chapter 5 Logic and Inference: Rules. Based on slides from Grigoris Antoniou and Frank van Harmelen. Lecture Outline. Introduction Monotonic Rules: Example Monotonic Rules: Syntax & Semantics Nonmonotonic Rules: Syntax Nonmonotonic Rules: Example A DTD For Monotonic Rules

msaville
Download Presentation

Chapter 5 Logic and Inference: Rules

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Chapter 5Logic and Inference: Rules Based on slides from Grigoris Antoniou and Frank van Harmelen

  2. Lecture Outline • Introduction • Monotonic Rules: Example • Monotonic Rules: Syntax & Semantics • Nonmonotonic Rules: Syntax • Nonmonotonic Rules: Example • A DTD For Monotonic Rules • A DTD For Nonmonotonic Rules

  3. Motivation • Description logic is good for somethings, not so good for others • OWL has some limitations • Many people want to express knowledge in rules • There are several efforts that impact the Semantic Web • RuleML • SWRL • N3 logic • Rules in Jena and other software packages

  4. Knowledge Representation • The subjects presented so far were related to the representation of knowledge • Knowledge Representation was studied long before the emergence of WWW in AI • Logic is still the foundation of KR, particularly in the form of predicate logic (first-order logic)

  5. The Importance of Logic • High-level language for expressing knowledge • High expressive power • Well-understood formal semantics • Precise notion of logical consequence • Proof systems that can automatically derive statements syntactically from a set of premises

  6. The Importance of Logic • There exist proof systems for which semantic logical consequence coincides with syntactic derivation within the proof system • Soundness & completeness • Predicate logic is unique in the sense that sound and complete proof systems do exist. • Not for more expressive logics (higher-order logics) • trace the proof that leads to a logical consequence. • Logic can provide explanations for answers • By tracing a proof

  7. Specializations of Predicate Logic:RDF and OWL • RDF/S and OWL (Lite and DL) are specializations of predicate logic • correspond roughly to a description logic • They define reasonable subsets of logic • Trade-off between the expressive power and the computational complexity: • The more expressive the language, the less efficient the corresponding proof systems

  8. Specializations of Predicate Logic: Horn Logic • A rule has the form: A1, . . ., An  B • Ai and B are atomic formulas • There are 2 ways of reading such a rule: • Deductive rules: If A1,..., An are known to be true, then B is also true • Reactive rules: If the conditions A1,..., An are true, then carry out the action B

  9. Description Logics vs. Horn Logic • Neither of them is a subset of the other • It’s impossible to assert that people who study and live in the same city are “home students” in OWL • This can be done easily using rules: studies(X,Y), lives(X,Z), loc(Y,U), loc(Z,U)  homeStudent(X) • Rules cannot assert the information that a person is either a man or a woman • This information is easily expressed in OWL using disjoint union

  10. Monotonic vs. Non-monotonic Rules • Example: An online vendor wants to give a special discount if it is a customer’s birthday Solution 1 R1: If birthday, then special discount R2: If not birthday, then not special discount • But what happens if a customer refuses to provide his birthday due to privacy concerns?

  11. Monotonic vs. Non-monotonic Rules Solution 2 R1: If birthday, then special discount R2’: If birthday is not known, then not special discount • Solves the problem but: • The premise of rule R2' is not within the expressive power of predicate logic • We need a new kind of rule system

  12. Monotonic vs. Non-monotonic Rules • The solution with rules R1 and R2 works in case we have complete information about the situation • The new kind of rule system will find application in cases where the available information is incomplete • R2’ is a nonmonotonic rule

  13. Exchange of Rules • Exchange of rules across different applications • E.g., an online store advertises its pricing, refund, and privacy policies, expressed using rules • The Semantic Web approach is to express the knowledge in a machine-accessible way using one of the Web languages we have already discussed • We show how rules can be expressed in XML-like languages (“rule markup languages”)

  14. Lecture Outline • Introduction • Monotonic Rules: Example • Monotonic Rules: Syntax & Semantics • Nonmonotonic Rules: Syntax • Nonmonotonic Rules: Example • A DTD For Monotonic Rules • A DTD For Nonmonotonic Rules

  15. Family Relations • Facts in a database about relations: • mother(X,Y), X is the mother of Y • father(X,Y), X is the father of Y • male(X), X is male • female(X), X is female • Inferred relation parent: A parent is either a father or a mother mother(X,Y)  parent(X,Y) father(X,Y)  parent(X,Y)

  16. Inferred Relations • male(X), parent(P,X), parent(P,Y), notSame(X,Y)  brother(X,Y) • female(X), parent(P,X), parent(P,Y), notSame(X,Y) sister(X,Y) • brother(X,P), parent(P,Y)  uncle(X,Y) • mother(X,P), parent(P,Y)  grandmother(X,Y) • parent(X,Y)  ancestor(X,Y) • ancestor(X,P), parent(P,Y)  ancestor(X,Y)

  17. Lecture Outline • Introduction • Monotonic Rules: Example • Monotonic Rules: Syntax & Semantics • Nonmonotonic Rules: Syntax • Nonmonotonic Rules: Example • A DTD For Monotonic Rules • A DTD For Nonmonotonic Rules

  18. Monotonic Rules – Syntax loyalCustomer(X), age(X) > 60  discount(X) • We distinguish some ingredients of rules: • variables which are placeholders for values: X • constants denote fixed values: 60 • Predicates relate objects: loyalCustomer, > • Function symbols which return a value for certain arguments: age

  19. Rules B1, . . . , Bn  A • A, B1, ... , Bn are atomic formulas • A is the head of the rule • B1, ... , Bn are the premises (body of the rule) • The commas in the rule body are read conjunctively • Variables may occur in A, B1, ... , Bn • loyalCustomer(X), age(X) > 60  discount(X) • Implicitly universally quantified

  20. Facts and Logic Programs • A fact is an atomic formula • E.g. loyalCustomer(a345678) • The variables of a fact are implicitly universally quantified. • A logic program P is a finite set of facts and rules. • Its predicate logic translation pl(P) is the set of all predicate logic interpretations of rules and facts in P

  21. Goals • A goal denotes a query G asked to a logic program • The form: B1, . . . , Bn  • If n = 0 we have the empty goal 

  22. First-Order Interpretation of Goals • X1 . . . Xk (¬B1  . . .  ¬Bn) • Where X1, ... , Xk are all variables occurring in B1, ..., Bn • Same as pl(r), with the rule head omitted • Equivalently: ¬X1 . . . Xk (B1  . . .  Bn) • Suppose we know p(a) and we have the goal p(X)  • We want to know if there is a value for which p is true • We expect a positive answer because of the fact p(a) • Thus p(X) is existentially quantified

  23. Why Negate the Formula? • We use a proof technique from mathematics called proof by contradiction: • Prove that A follows from B by assuming that A is false and deriving a contradiction, when combined with B • In logic programming we prove that a goal can be answered positively by negating the goal and proving that we get a contradiction using the logic program • E.g., given the following logic program we get a logical contradiction

  24. An Example p(a) ¬X p(X) • The 2nd formula says that no element has the property p • The 1st formula says that the value of a does have the property p • Thus X p(X) follows from p(a)

  25. Ground Witnesses • So far we have focused on yes/no answers to queries • Suppose that we have the fact p(a) and the query p(X)  • The answer yes is correct but not satisfactory • The appropriate answer is a substitution {X/a} which gives an instantiation for X • The constant a is called a ground witness

  26. Parameterized Witnesses add(X,0,X) add(X,Y,Z)  add(X,s(Y ),s(Z)) add(X, s8(0),Z)  • Possible ground witnesses: • {X/0,Z/s8(0)}, {X/s(0),Z/s9(0)} . . . • The parameterized witness Z = s8(X) is the most general answer to the query: • X Z add(X,s8(0),Z) • The computation of most general witnesses is the primary aim of SLD resolution

  27. Lecture Outline • Introduction • Monotonic Rules: Example • Monotonic Rules: Syntax & Semantics • Nonmonotonic Rules: Syntax • Nonmonotonic Rules: Example • A DTD For Monotonic Rules • A DTD For Nonmonotonic Rules

  28. Motivation – Negation in Rule Head • In nonmonotonic rule systems, a rule may not be applied even if all premises are known because we have to consider contrary reasoning chains • Now we consider defeasible rules that can be defeated by other rules • Negated atoms may occur in the head and the body of rules, to allow for conflicts • p(X)  q(X) • r(X)  ¬q(X)

  29. Defeasible Rules p(X)  q(X) r(X)  ¬q(X) • Given also the facts p(a) and r(a) we conclude neither q(a) nor ¬q(a) • This is a typical example of 2 rules blocking each other • Conflict may be resolved using priorities among rules • Suppose we knew somehow that the 1st rule is stronger than the 2nd • Then we could derive q(a)

  30. Origin of Rule Priorities • Higher authority • E.g. in law, federal law pre-empts state law • E.g., in business administration, higher management has more authority than middle management • Recency • Specificity • A typical example is a general rule with some exceptions • We abstract from the specific prioritization principle • We assume the existence of an external priority relation on the set of rules

  31. Rule Priorities r1: p(X)  q(X) r2: r(X)  ¬q(X) r1 > r2 • Rules have a unique label • The priority relation to be acyclic

  32. Competing Rules • In simple cases two rules are competing only if one head is the negation of the other • But in many cases once a predicate p is derived, some other predicates are excluded from holding • E.g., an investment consultant may base his recommendations on three levels of risk investors are willing to take: low, moderate, and high • Only one risk level per investor is allowed to hold

  33. Competing Rules (2) • These situations are modelled by maintaining a conflict set C(L) for each literal L • C(L) always contains the negation of L but may contain more literals

  34. Defeasible Rules: Syntax r : L1, ..., Ln  L • r is the label • {L1, ..., Ln} the body (or premises) • L the head of the rule • L,L1, ..., Ln are positive or negative literals • A literal is an atomic formula p(t1,...,tm) or its negation ¬p(t1,...,tm) • No function symbols may occur in the rule

  35. Defeasible Logic Programs • A defeasible logic program is a triple (F,R,>) consisting of • a set F of facts • a finite set R of defeasible rules • an acyclic binary relation > on R • A set of pairs r > r' where r and r' are labels of rules in R

  36. Lecture Outline • Introduction • Monotonic Rules: Example • Monotonic Rules: Syntax & Semantics • Nonmonotonic Rules: Syntax • Nonmonotonic Rules: Example • A DTD For Monotonic Rules • A DTD For Nonmonotonic Rules

  37. Brokered Trade • Brokered trades take place via an independent third party, the broker • The broker matches the buyer’s requirements and the sellers’ capabilities, and proposes a transaction when both parties can be satisfied by the trade • The application is apartment renting an activity that is common and often tedious and time-consuming

  38. The Potential Buyer’s Requirements • At least 45 sq m with at least 2 bedrooms • Elevator if on 3rd floor or higher • Pets must be allowed • Carlos is willing to pay: • $ 300 for a centrally located 45 sq m apartment • $ 250 for a similar flat in the suburbs • An extra $ 5 per square meter for a larger apartment • An extra $ 2 per square meter for a garden • He is unable to pay more than $ 400 in total • If given the choice, he would go for the cheapest option • His second priority is the presence of a garden • His lowest priority is additional space

  39. Formalization of Carlos’s Requirements –Predicates Used • size(x,y), y is the size of apartment x (in sq m) • bedrooms(x,y), x has y bedrooms • price(x,y), y is the price for x • floor(x,y), x is on the y-th floor • gardenSize(x,y), x has a garden of size y • lift(x), there is an elevator in the house of x • pets(x), pets are allowed in x • central(x), x is centrally located • acceptable(x), flat x satisfies Carlos’s requirements • offer(x,y), Carlos is willing to pay $ y for flat x

  40. Formalization of Carlos’s Requirements –Rules r1:  acceptable(X) r2: bedrooms(X,Y), Y < 2  ¬acceptable(X) r3: size(X,Y), Y < 45  ¬acceptable(X) r4: ¬pets(X)  ¬acceptable(X) r5: floor(X,Y), Y > 2, ¬lift(X)  ¬acceptable(X) r6: price(X,Y), Y > 400  ¬acceptable(X) r2 > r1, r3 > r1, r4 > r1, r5 > r1, r6 > r1

  41. Formalization of Carlos’s Requirements –Rules r7: size(X,Y), Y ≥ 45, garden(X,Z), central(X)  offer(X, 300 + 2*Z + 5*(Y − 45)) r8: size(X,Y), Y ≥ 45, garden(X,Z), ¬central(X)  offer(X, 250 + 2*Z + 5(Y − 45)) r9: offer(X,Y), price(X,Z), Y < Z  ¬acceptable(X) r9 > r1

  42. Representation of Available Apartments bedrooms(a1,1) size(a1,50) central(a1) floor(a1,1) ¬lift(a1) pets(a1) garden(a1,0) price(a1,300)

  43. Representation of Available Apartments

  44. Determining Acceptable Apartments • If we match Carlos’s requirements and the available apartments, we see that • flat a1 is not acceptable because it has one bedroom only (rule r2) • flats a4 and a6 are unacceptable because pets are not allowed (rule r4) • for a2, Carlos is willing to pay $ 300, but the price is higher (rules r7 and r9) • flats a3, a5, and a7 are acceptable (rule r1)

  45. Selecting an Apartment r10: cheapest(X)  rent(X) r11: cheapest(X), largestGarden(X)  rent(X) r12: cheapest(X), largestGarden(X), largest(X)  rent(X) r12 > r10, r12 > r11, r11 > r10 • We must specify that at most one apartment can be rented, using conflict sets: • C(rent(x)) = {¬rent(x)}  {rent(y) | y ≠ x}

  46. Lecture Outline • Introduction • Monotonic Rules: Example • Monotonic Rules: Syntax & Semantics • Nonmonotonic Rules: Syntax • Nonmonotonic Rules: Example • A DTD For Monotonic Rules • A DTD For Nonmonotonic Rules

  47. Atomic Formulas • p(X, a, f(b, Y )) <atom> <predicate>p</predicate> <term><var>X</var></term> <term><const>a</const></term> <term> <function>f</function> <term><const>b</const></term> <term> <var>Y</var></term> </term> </atom>

  48. Facts <fact> <atom> <predicate>p</predicate> <term> <const>a</const> </term> </atom> </fact>

  49. Rules <rule> <head> <atom> <predicate>r</predicate> <term><var>X</var></term> <term><var>Y</var></term> </atom> </head>

  50. Rules (2) <body> <atom><predicate>p</predicate> <term><var>X</var></term> <term> <const>a</const> </term> </atom> <atom><predicate>q</predicate> <term> <var>Y</var></term> <term> <const>b</const></term> </atom> </body> </rule>

More Related